Proof of Immortality II

[Mojo]

When we are born, we cry that we are come to this great stage of fools.

- King Lear​

Jabba can mangle poor old Bayes
As often, in as many ways
As he can find, but never can
He change the final fate of man:
We'll none of us avoid the hearse.

This thread just went from bard to verse.

 

[Jabba]

- My current existence IS what I'm proposing as "new evidence." I'm claiming that I should not be counted as just someone/anyone -- I am set apart, a special case, a target. My sub-claims:

3. Being “set apart” is not just is or isn’t. It exists in degrees, and the degree to which an event is set apart, relates to the probability required to make it significant.
4. The degree to which my specific, current existence is set apart may be very small, but the probability of my specific, current existence is unimaginably small.

5. Why my specific, current existence should be set apart:
5.1. I am the only eye on the universe that I have. If I never existed, there might as well be nothing -- forever. And, the odds of me ever existing were, at least, 1080! : 1.
5.2. I am also the only thing, process or illusion that I know actually exists (in one form or the other).
5.3. The likelihood of “now” being between 1942 and 2014 (say) is also unimaginably small. And, the likelihood of my specific, current existence is something like 10^80! * 10^80!!
5.4. Ultimately, we’re trying to compare two probabilities – the likelihood that I would be so lucky as to currently exist, given “A,” versus the prior probability of “~A.” It seems obvious that the latter is MUCH greater.
5.5. This last claim is probably the key to my argument – it’s probably the implications buried in this claim that make my specific, current existence a “special” case...

- Which is more likely, that I am tremendously lucky or that "A" is not correct? Superficially at least, the answer seems obvious -- "A" is not correct.

- This way of expressing the issue seems to capture the essence of my claim.
- i'm still working on why it does that...

 

[Jabba]

Jabba can mangle poor old Bayes
As often, in as many ways
As he can find, but never can
He change the final fate of man:
We'll none of us avoid the hearse.

This thread just went from bard to verse.

- Cute!

 

[Akhenaten]

- Which is more likely, that I am tremendously lucky or that "A" is not correct?

This is a false dilemma, as well you know.

Your tawdry attempt at rhetorical legerdemain isn't just tawdry - it's unimaginably clumsy.


Is this really the best that Truly Effective Debate™ has to offer?

Superficially at least, the answer seems obvious -- "A" is not correct.

Balderdash.

- This way of expressing the issue seems to capture the essence of my claim.

Indeed it does.

- i'm still working on why it does that...

A protracted indulgence in self-delusion would normally have been my first guess but there's an abiding wilfulness to your refusal to acknowledge the errors in your various theories that speaks more to a likelihood of simple attention seeking than any genuine inability to understand and embrace the obvious truth of your one-time-only mortal existence.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Cute!

What is the nature of that for which your OP claimed immortality, Jabba?

 

[godless dave]

- Which is more likely, that I am tremendously lucky or that "A" is not correct? Superficially at least, the answer seems obvious -- "A" is not correct.

That answer doesn't seem obvious to me at all.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hello . . . Jabba?

Where are all the immortal tyrannosauruses?

Where are the 101 billion immortal people who aren't currently alive?

Where are the immortal dodos?

 

[Akhenaten]

What is the probability of the existence of the ant that just ran away from my descending foot? Are ants immortal?

jond,
- Probably.

This ant, Jabba, was killed by the mite you can see attacking it about 45 million years before jond's foot existed.

Is it immortal?

It certainly looks ******* dead to me.

 

[Akhenaten]

"No answer!" came the stern reply.

 

[Giordano]

Hello . . . Jabba?

Where are all the immortal tyrannosauruses?

Where are the immortal dodos?

Great points! If all conscious creatures are immortally reincarnated, how did any ever go extinct? Where are all those T. rex souls now?

Humans have increased in number (requiring Jabba to propose that selfs can either be reincarnated or can be created de novo). This creates some serious fatal problems with his theory, but what also about the reverse side of the coin, the animals who have been reduced in numbers or who have died off? I presume, given a few statements by Jabba, that their souls have been merged with the universal-shared giant soul he once proposed, but I gather that they are not to be reincarnated any further. So what if he or I die and instead of reincarnating us, we too are to be placed in this "well of souls" (Indiana Jones?) forever? I don't think I would like that, unless I got to melt some Nazis like in the first film. This might take place especially if birth control efforts in the world succeed and the human population plateaus and eventually decreases.

 

[Giordano]

- Which is more likely, that I am tremendously lucky or that "A" is not correct? Superficially at least, the answer seems obvious -- "A" is not correct.

- This way of expressing the issue seems to capture the essence of my claim.
- i'm still working on why it does that...

Already answered: read (or re-read) the replies if you care about the actual facts.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Which is more likely, that I am tremendously lucky or that "A" is not correct? Superficially at least, the answer seems obvious -- "A" is not correct.

- This way of expressing the issue seems to capture the essence of my claim.
- i'm still working on why it does that...

How does that, in any way, address your claim that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

 

[Agatha]

- Which is more likely, that I am tremendously lucky or that "A" is not correct? Superficially at least, the answer seems obvious -- "A" is not correct.

Are those the only two alternatives?

The ant and mite shown upthread were tremendously 'lucky' to be preserved in amber (in the sense that very few creatures out of the billions which have ever existed have been preserved as fossils or in amber). The odds against them first existing, then existing at the same time, then ending up in any piece of amber, never mind that particular piece, must be "unimaginable".

And yet, there they are, and neither their existence or their preservation is in any way at odds with the 'scientific model'.

 

[tsig]

This ant, Jabba, was killed by the mite you can see attacking it about 45 million years before jond's foot existed.

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/AmberAnt.jpg[/qimg]​

Is it immortal?

It certainly looks ******* dead to me.

Merely resting.

 

[tsig]

Great points! If all conscious creatures are immortally reincarnated, how did any ever go extinct? Where are all those T. rex souls now?

Humans have increased in number (requiring Jabba to propose that selfs can either be reincarnated or can be created de novo). This creates some serious fatal problems with his theory, but what also about the reverse side of the coin, the animals who have been reduced in numbers or who have died off? I presume, given a few statements by Jabba, that their souls have been merged with the universal-shared giant soul he once proposed, but I gather that they are not to be reincarnated any further. So what if he or I die and instead of reincarnating us, we too are to be placed in this "well of souls" (Indiana Jones?) forever? I don't think I would like that, unless I got to melt some Nazis like in the first film. This might take place especially if birth control efforts in the world succeed and the human population plateaus and eventually decreases.

The dinos waxed immoral doing horrible things in god's sight so he sent a giant asteroid to destroy them and allow mankind to rule the Earth.

Says so right in Genesis if your read sideways between the lines and understand the Hebrew word for day.

 

[Mojo]

- Which is more likely, that I am tremendously lucky or that "A" is not correct?

Not quite. You propose a situation in which a vast (or even infinite) number of potential "selves" are somehow competing to occupy your body. Whether or not your "self" is immortal, you still only have one body, and the same number of potential "selves" competing for it.

So the correct question, according to your own argument, is:

Which is more likely, that you are tremendously lucky, or that you are tremendously lucky and "A" is not correct?

 

[Giordano]

Are you "lucky" if you are a conscious being and a statistically unlikely, but very bad, event happens to you? It is statistically very unlikely for me to die by being run down by a rhino, but the numbers indicate that it is possible. Wouldn't I therefore be "lucky" in the very same way that Jabba determines it if that rare death by rhino happens to me?

Are statistical probabilities relevant not only if I am conscious, but also if the statistical event is a positive one? Is the statistics of drawing a 3 of clubs dependent on whether it completes my straight or gives me nothing worthwhile in my poker hand?

This is fascinating stuff that I never knew about statistics.

 

[Giordano]

The dinos waxed immoral doing horrible things in god's sight so he sent a giant asteroid to destroy them and allow mankind to rule the Earth.

Says so right in Genesis if your read sideways between the lines and understand the Hebrew word for day.

I recently learned that there are some dino-human "erotic" (if you forgive the quotes) books, so perhaps the asteroid was a very good idea.

 

[Giordano]

Not quite. You propose a situation in which a vast (or even infinite) number of potential "selves" are somehow competing to occupy your body. Whether or not your "self" is immortal, you still only have one body, and the same number of potential "selves" competing for it.

So the correct question, according to your own argument, is:

Which is more likely, that you are tremendously lucky, or that you are tremendously lucky and "A" is not correct?

Exactly: perhaps Jabba is tremendously lucky (I view my own life as quite lucky). But that doesn't mean that "A" is wrong is any way. In fact Jabba's theory (he obtained his one particular soul out of an infinity of souls being created, or this infinity of de novo souls plus (?) those being recycled) would require that he was far luckier than would the scientific model require.

 

[Mojo]

Exactly: perhaps Jabba is tremendously lucky (I view my own life as quite lucky). But that doesn't mean that "A" is wrong is any way.

Jabba's existence is entirely consistent with "A", so as a "new piece of evidence" it has no impact on the likelyhood of "A" being correct.